„Gandhi has been and is being revered and tabooed, loved and hated. The ones consider him a new-age Jesus, who has awakened the
ideals of the man from Nazareth to new life in the 20th century; the
others agree with Churchill and see in Gandhi nothing more than a half-naked
Fakir, who fundamentally does not deserve any attention. The ones seein him a
god-like Saint, while others deem him a shrewd political tactician, a virtuoso
in mass suggestion.” (Münster, p.17) kt.philo.at:8080/1092/1/se0405freiler.pdf

The pillar-saints of history are not
always what they seem to be. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi “(/ˈɡɑːndi,ˈɡæn-/;[2]
Hindustani: [ˈmoːɦənd̪aːs ˈkərəmtʃənd̪ˈɡaːnd̪ʱi] ; 2 October 1869 – 30 January 1948), also known as Bapu, was the preeminent leader of Indian independence movementin British-ruled
India. Employing nonviolentcivil disobedience, Gandhi
led India to independence and inspired movements for civil rights and freedom
across the world. The honorific Mahatma (Sanskrit: "high-souled",
"venerable"[3])—applied to him first in 1914 in South Africa,[4]—is
now used worldwide. He is also called Bapu
(Gujarati:
endearment for "father",[5]
"papa"[5][6]) in India.

Born and raised in a Hindu merchant caste family in coastal Gujarat, western India, and trained
in law at theInner Temple,
London, Gandhi first employed nonviolent civil disobedience as an expatriate
lawyer in South Africa, in the resident Indian community's struggle for civil
rights.After his return to India in1915, he set about organising peasants, farmers, and
urban labourers to protest against excessive land-tax and discrimination.
Assuming leadership of the Indian National
Congress in 1921, Gandhi led nationwide campaigns for easing
poverty, expanding women's rights, building religious and ethnic amity, ending untouchability, but above
all for achieving Swaraj or self-rule.” (Wikipedia), in many respects is such a
case.

Gandhi’s courageous as well as
successful effort in the independence struggle against the British Empire,
wherebyin 1947 the end of colonial rule of India has been achieved,is and
remains uncontested. Yet uncontested is also that non-violence for Gandhi was
more means to an end rather than an end in itself: „If there is only the choice between cowardice and
violence, then I am for violence."

With regard to
the campaign of the legendary “Salt March” (1930) Hindu soldiers refused to
shoot into a Moslem crowd: "A
soldier, who does not obey the order to shoot, breaks his oath.” criticized
Gandhi as a result. In 1938 Gandhi went even further: „he recommended to Jews in 1938 to commit collective suicide, in order
to shake up the world againstHitler, an attitude, which he also continued to
defend after the Holocaust. The idea to call for resistance obviously did not
occur to him.“

In total Gandhi remained
an Indian nationalist until the end: „His
lack of needs was religiously motivated and was not considered a guideline for
all. ‘The more we possess the more we are chained to this earth’ was his motto.
Yet from the rich he asked for sacrifices only for the soul’s peace. It never
occurred to him to criticize the role of women in society."http://www.sozialismus.net/zeitung/mr15/ghandi.html

Gandhi’s (Ahisma, non-violence in the sense of
“non-killing”, Brahmacarya (chastity),
Svaraj (self-control) were means to
an end rather than the origin of profound inner self-recognition.

I myself over and
over again gained the impression, the more intensively I preoccupied myself
with the person and the life of Gandhi, that Gandhi had to restrain the
so-called “7 deadly sins” pride (Superbia), stinginess (Avaritia), envy
(Invidia), anger (Ira), wantonness (Luxuria), voracity (Gula) and (Acedia) in himself
with all force.

The ascetic nimbus,
which Gandhi surrounded himself with, had the effect for me of being more a
protection for Gandhi himself and his own still uncontrollable passions.

Instead
of accepting his “lower instincts” in love, Gandhi tried to control these with
might and main, instead of transforming these and to release them into the
Light; this inner tension, which Gandhi had to endure for his whole life, were
fought against with all means.There are
pictures of the already older independence fighter, whereby Gandhi lies next to
young naked women. These “chastity experiments” served in order to test hisreaction, in order to see in what way an excitation occurs or in what way this
one can be controlled.

«The sister of his secretary was allowed to sleep with him in the same
bed and to bathe with him. Gandhi regarded this as a “test” for his abstinence.
“Gandhi liked to speak and write about sex”, said Adams (Jad Adams, „Gandhi:
Naked Ambition“, Quercus, rem. JJK) in an interview. There are written notes
about his sexual experiments, according to the historian. As Gandhi became older, the number of women in his vicinity increased, according to Adams. The
“chastity experiments” also turned more into striptease performances and into other “contact-less sexual actions”. At the age of 77 he summoned his 18-year-old
female great nephew into his bed, or Abha, the wife of his great nephew, sometimes both of them. Both women were also with him, when Gandhi was murdered
in the open street in 1948.http://bazonline.ch/kultur/diverses/Gandhi-und-die-jungen-Frauen/story/28478105

This example
alone shows how intensively the innerbattles raged within the Nobel Peace
Prize winner andhow far removed Gandhi was from realized inner peace.What for the
Jesuits was the scourge, was for Gandhi the asceticism, the denial of
everything physical (sex, nutrition), with the result to especially emphasize
it in another area, in order to compensate for the repression in this manner.

Transformation means
to make peace with your lower self, to have accepted it, integrated and having
lived it, yet it does not mean to deny what one does not like or negate what on
another level of consciousness is part of human expression and part of human
development.

In this light
Gandhi’s hunger strikes and forced marches, as well as his later rendered oath
of chastity have the same effect like the in the 16thcentury in
Germany developing scourge processions, which were very much fostered by the
Jesuits, and are rarely the result of a fundamental inner enlightenment.

And in exactly
this point it is necessary to distinguish with Gandhi: What served him as means
to an end– no matter how you may think about it – in order to achieve
political goals and to attain a change in society and what was realized within
Gandhi himself, was an end in itself and not means to an end?

It is not crucial what someone does, instead why
someone does it. And this is the point.

Only looked at
under this premise, Gandhi’s life becomes understandable for descendants, but
foremost any transfiguration, and Gandhi’s life, in its abundance as well as
lack, can be looked at far from any misinterpretation. This is a
somewhat disenchanting assessment, which one inevitably finds, if one digs
deeper into Gandhi’s life.

I am convinced
that human Beings can also accept this truth and that this truth can also
liberate human Beings.

Becauseas long
as the aura is attached to those, who are no Saints, can one’s own salvation
rarely be attained, because false inner images block one’s own development and
the power for insights.

„The coming generations will probably barely believe that somebody like this one ever walked on earth in flesh and blood.” said Albert Einstein about Gandhi.

It is not like
that and Einstein erred. What is true for Gandhi can also be said about Einstein:
The “Einstein aura” is not inferior in anything to the “Gandhi illusion”, but
this is another story.

In summary:
Gandhi’s political merits regarding India’s independence are indisputable.
Gandhi’s methods in order to control his own desires and his temperament
(fasting, chastity, castration- also asked of his environment!), on the one
hand and Gandhi’s open hate for blacks, on the other hand, require an extensive examination.

It is necessary:
to encounter the pillar Saints of this matrix unbiased and far from
pre-fabricated images from mainstream. And this publication is based on this
claim, as well as the contribution “Gandhi’s hatred toward Black African
People”.

Ghandi and his
Hatred toward Blacks African PeopleByNaresh Majhi

To understand
Gandhi's role towards the blacks, one requires a knowledge of Hinduism. Within
the constraints, a few words on Hinduism will suffice: The caste is the bedrock of Hinduism. The Hindu term for caste is varna; which means arranging the society on a four-level hierarchy based on the skin color: The darker-skinned
relegated to thelowest level, the lighter-skinned to the top threelevels of
the apartheid scale called the Caste System.

The race factor underlies the intricate workings of Hinduism, not to mention the countless evil practices embedded within. Have no doubt, Gandhi loved the Caste system. Gandhi lived in
South Africa for roughly twenty one years from 1893 to 1914. In 1906, he joined the military with a rank of Sergeant-Major and actively participated in the war
against the blacks. Gandhi's racist ideas are also evident in his writings of
these periods.

To continue and
to read the full English text, please copy and activate this link:http://www.reunionblackfamily.com/apps/blog/show/43186420-%20ghandi-and-his-hatred-toward-afrikan-people-